Your shiur is so clear and understandable. I so enjoyed listening to it. May I venture an idea, an extension of your last few sources which say something to the effect that "a wedding mightn't turn out to be all positive"? I say: A wedding is SIGNIFICANTLY different from all the other cases where we do make shehecheyanu, because there is an institution called "get" in the Torah which undoes a wedding. The bracha "zman" contains the word "vekiyyemanu" which implies permanence. But there is not necessarily permanence with a wedding.

Dear Sir: Thank you for your response; I’m glad you enjoyed the Shiur. Your point about the institution of the *get* as something that can undo the marriage is excellent and very well taken; it certainly contributes to the idea that the wedding ceremony is indeed not the “end” of the mitzvah - indeed, it can be uprooted (through a *halachic* mechanism), thus mitigating against the *Shehecheyanu*. *Yasher Kochachah*!! The connection to the word “*vekiyemanu*” as implying permanence is interesting, though in the *berachah* itself it doesn’t have to have that connotation, and can rather imply having been “sustained” up to this point. I thank you for listening to the Shiur and for sharing your insightful comments. Kol Tuv, M. Taubes

Dear Sir: Thank you for your response; I’m glad you enjoyed the Shiur. Your point about the institution of the *get* as something that can undo the marriage is excellent and very well taken; it certainly contributes to the idea that the wedding ceremony is indeed not the “end” of the mitzvah - indeed, it can be uprooted (through a *halachic* mechanism), thus mitigating against the *Shehecheyanu*. *Yasher Kochachah*!! The connection to the word “*vekiyemanu*” as implying permanence is interesting, though in the *berachah* itself it doesn’t have to have that connotation, and can rather imply having been “sustained” up to this point. I thank you for listening to the Shiur and for sharing your insightful comments. Kol Tuv, M. Taubes